Filed: Sep. 05, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6528 JOSEPH P. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ED BANKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-562-5-H) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Cla
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6528 JOSEPH P. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ED BANKS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-562-5-H) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clar..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6528
JOSEPH P. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ED BANKS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-95-562-5-H)
Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996
Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to
appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is re-
quired, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Banks, No. CA-95-562-5-H
(E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2